David Wilshire: I have a women's prison in my constituency. As the Home Secretary will know, some women give birth while serving a prison sentence, although their children are not born in prison. When he is giving answers to such questions in which statistics are produced about numbers of child deaths, will he assure us that infants who die due to a medical tragedies that have absolutely nothing to do with prisons will be excluded from the political debate, or alternatively that such statistics will be marked with some asterisk to show that that was the case?

John Reid: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I shall make a statement about our operations in Iraq.
	On returning to the House, may I first express my sincere condolences—and, I am sure, those of the whole House—to the families of those UK forces personnel who were most recently killed in Iraq: on 5 September, Fusilier Donal Anthony Mead and Fusilier Stephen Robert Manning, both from C company, 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers; and on 11 September, Major Matthew Bacon of the intelligence corps, who was serving as a staff officer with the headquarters of the Multi-National Division (South East). We express our gratitude to those who gave their lives in the service of their country, and we express our condolences to their families and to their loved ones.
	Let us remind ourselves of our objective in Iraq. It is to work, along with the rest of the international community, and now the United Nations under United Nations Security Council resolution 1546, to assist the Iraqi people and their elected representatives: first, to establish their own democratic Government and institutions; secondly, to build their own security forces to safeguard that democracy; and thirdly, to develop their economy and civil society. We are helping the Iraqis to build all three of them; the terrorists want to impede and destroy all three of them. That is the battleground. I can put it no better than President Talibani did in The Times this morning:
	"The battle of Iraq cannot be won by retreat or compromise, but by the vision and determination for which Britain is renowned."
	And that means, as Prime Minister Jafaari said when I met him recently:
	"The presence of multinational forces in Iraq for us is based on need, security need for those forces to support our forces."
	The United Kingdom is in Iraq for as long as we are needed, and as long as we need to be there, and no longer than either.
	The political process, despite the worst intentions of the terrorists, continues to be on track. Following the elections in January of this year and the establishment of the constitutional commission, the Iraqis have now produced a draft constitution that will be the subject of an historic national referendum later this week. Few people thought that we would get to this point. Preparations are also under way for full, democratic, national elections in December. These are, in any context, enormous strides forward, and, in the context of the continual terrorist activity, hugely significant strides forward which have been made in spite of the terrorist attempts to derail Iraq's progress towards a peaceful and democratic future.
	Against this political backdrop, the coalition's top priority is working with the Iraqis to improve the security environment and to build the capability of the Iraqi security forces so that they themselves are increasingly able to take responsibility for delivering law and order. In this we are working not alone, but with 27 other nations under the United Nations Security Council resolution. Despite, again, all the efforts of the terrorists, I can report to the House that we are beginning to see real progress in building up the Iraqi security forces. There are now more than 190,000 Iraqi security force personnel who have been trained and are capable thus far, and the number of Iraqi units capable of conducting effective counter-insurgency operations is increasing steadily. That means that there are now, for the first time, more trained and capable Iraqi security forces than there are multinational forces in Iraq.
	But as everyone involved in this process recognises, there are no quick fixes, and building the Iraqi leadership, command and control, logistics and support structures will take more time. We have always said that our handover to the Iraqis themselves will be conditional upon their developing their own security capabilities, and that we will see the job through until those conditions have been met.
	The House may wish to be reminded of the criteria and the terms on which those conditions might be fulfilled, since there has been some demand outside this House for clarification on what is sometimes called the exit strategy. The conditions that will permit the transfer of security responsibility to the Iraqi security forces have been defined by the joint committee to transfer security responsibility, which, as the House may recall, was formed by the Iraqi Prime Minister over the summer.
	The basic principles for transfer of security to the Iraqi authorities are based on four broad categories: an assessment of the insurgents' threat level; Iraqi security forces' ability to take on the security task themselves; the capacity of provincial bodies to cope with the changed security environment; and the posture and support available from coalition forces. Those are the criteria; we expect the Committee's criteria to be confirmed soon. Thereafter, assessments will be made by the Iraqis to determine which areas of Iraq are ready to transfer to Iraqi control.
	I emphasise that we therefore stand by the strategy that we have maintained up to now, which sets out the conditions under which we will hand security to the Iraqis themselves and begin to draw down our forces. I want to emphasise again that we will stay in Iraq until the job is done and that we will not make significant changes to the United Kingdom's force posture in Iraq until we, the coalition partners and, in particular, the Iraqis themselves, are confident that the conditions are right. That was, is and remains our position and any speculation to the contrary is simply wrong. Indeed, I would go further and say that the biggest obstacle now to our leaving Iraq in view of the build-up of the Iraqi forces' capability is the actions of the terrorists themselves. Terrorist activity only delays our leaving Iraq; it does not hasten it.
	Turning specifically to the security situation in Multinational Division (South East), hon. Members will have seen the graphic television pictures of events in Basra on 19 September. Two soldiers in MND(SE) were arrested by the Iraqi police service and held at an Iraqi police station in Basra. We agreed with the Governor of Basra and the chief of police to collect the personnel from the police station but, as we prepared to do so, it became clear that the two soldiers had been handed to local militia. The decision to mount an operation to enter the police station was then taken—a decision that I fully supported at the time and still fully support.
	I am pleased to be able to tell the House that, while one of the soldiers injured on that day is still receiving medical treatment, the others have returned to their units. They all have my thanks and admiration for a job well done, and I believe that they have the thanks of the whole House.
	The fact that we were able to mount an extremely complex operation in defence of our own soldiers, which led to the successful rescue of two soldiers held hostage by militiamen without firing a single shot, is a credit to our forces. I can also confirm that the Iraqis have now withdrawn the warrants that they issued later that week for the arrest of the two British soldiers concerned.
	I would not wish to downplay the challenges that remain before us. For instance, the arrest of 12 suspects last week on Friday demonstrates our determination to deal robustly with those implicated in improvised explosive device attacks—bomb attacks to the layman—against our UK forces. I can confirm that weapons and other equipment were found in those raids.
	Nevertheless, serious as they were, we need to keep those events in perspective. The rest of MND(SE) was unaffected, Basra has remained largely calm since the incident and we have been working hard to restore relations with Basra council so that we can work together for the good of the people in Basra.
	On troop roulement and troop presence in Iraq, I very much regret the speculative and often wildly misleading press reports that have appeared since we last met here. I have not discussed any troop roulements in detail until the House returned because I believe that the House should be the first to know our intentions. Unfortunately, holding for that length of time sometimes prompts wild speculation outside.
	Let me therefore turn to the details of the next routine troop rotation of UK forces in MND(SE), which begins this month. The lead UK formation in Iraq, currently 12 Mechanised Brigade, will be replaced by 7 Armoured Brigade, which will take over command of UK forces in early November. In addition to 7 Armoured Brigade's Headquarters and Signals Squadron, the following major units will be deployed to replace those currently in Iraq: 2nd Battalion the Parachute Regiment; 1st Battalion the Highlanders; 1st Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers; 9th/12th Royal Lancers; 1st Battalion the King's Own Royal Border Regiment; the Scots Dragoon Guards; 3rd Regiment Royal Horse Artillery; 32nd Engineer Regiment; and 2 Logistics Support Regiment.
	The Territorial Army units involved in this roulement are a single company from the 4th Battalion the Parachute Regiment and a composite company from the West Midlands Regiment and the Royal Welsh Regiment. During what will be a very busy period of troop movements, I have also decided to deploy one company from the Cyprus-based theatre reserve force to relieve the rotating troops of some routine security tasks, such as static security or guard duty. A company of 1st Battalion the Royal Highland Fusiliers will deploy for a few weeks while that rotation lasts.
	The total numbers of troops in Iraq following the deployment of 7 Armoured Brigade will be around 8,000. That is about 500 fewer than at present, reflecting the closure of two small bases in Basra, the transfer of some training tasks to the Iraqi security forces and structural differences between the two brigades. These are relatively minor adjustments, however, and will not affect the activities being carried out by United Kingdom forces.
	We will continue to build Iraqi security capability and to keep the security situation under review during the referendum and through the elections later this year. The Iraqi security forces themselves will lead on security in the referendum, with our support. In MND(SE), we have been assisting the Iraqi army's 10th Division to ensure that it is prepared for this task. Earlier this year, I visited the 10th Division in Iraq.
	This summer has seen much positive progress in Iraq, despite the worst intentions of the terrorists. The production of an Iraqi constitution, written by democratically elected Iraqi politicians on behalf of their own people, is a huge step forward. We have no intention of undermining this historic achievement by abandoning Iraq before it is ready to stand on its own two feet, or before its democratically elected politicians feel that to be the case. Of course, we will encounter more obstacles. There will be more major hurdles to overcome, particularly in the run-up to the elections in December, when a minority of the Iraqis and some from outside—the terrorists—will almost certainly seek to disrupt Iraq's progress towards security, democracy and self-determination.
	The recent discovery and recovery of more than 160 more bodies from a mass grave in the al-Muthanna province in MND(SE), is a sober reminder of the horrors that the Iraqi people have had to face in the past, and of the reasons why we must continue our efforts to support them in building a better future, embracing democracy and free from tyranny. So, while we do not want to be in Iraq any longer than is absolutely necessary, we will not be deflected from our task. We have made a commitment to the Iraqi people; it is important that we honour that commitment and see our task through, and that is what we will do.

John Reid: I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his words of support and his plaudits for our forces. They are well deserved and his views are reflected on both sides of the House.   The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked how the job being done would be measured and by whom. I hope that in the four criteria that I outlined in my statement I have set out the how part of that—in other words, the criteria by which we shall judge the job being done. The capacity of the Iraqi security forces to take the lead themselves will be judged first, on their numbers and capability; secondly, the level of capacity of the provincial government to deal with the new security situation; thirdly, the level of support that it is necessary for us to give them; and, fourthly, the level of the terrorist threat.
	As to the when, will that be an event? No, it will be a process. Will that process achieve the necessary conditions in every part of the country at the same time? No, so geographically, and in time lines, it will be a continuing process. Who will decide that? Obviously, at the end of the day every sovereign nation, including ourselves, has the right, if it so wishes, to make any decision that it wishes. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, or any other hon. Member, would not want us to take a decision that dishonoured a pledge that we made to the Iraqi people and to their democratically elected representatives. Of course, the decision will be made in consultation with the Iraqis. At the end of the day, the truth is that we do not want to be there any longer than necessary. Quite frankly, the Iraqi politicians, who are democratically elected and accountable to their people, do not want us there any longer than we are needed and necessary either. That is precisely what Prime Minister Jafaari and I said at the press conference some two weeks ago. However, if we read what he and President Talibani said this morning, it is obvious that the minority of terrorists who are attempting to claim that we are not there with the support of Iraqi people are being absolutely misleading. We are there, with the support of the Iraqi people, for as long as it is necessary to secure their own developing democracy.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks about air transport, and he has written to me on that point. I can tell him that we have done everything that we can to overcome those difficulties, and they have been overcome. Without going into details, the problem is very often not the aircraft, but having suitable aircraft with defensive suites. The safety of our troops travelling in and out of Iraq is paramount, and we have now managed to overcome that the difficulties. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the transitional period during which it is envisaged that the company from the reserve theatre in Cyprus might be deployed in Iraq. That is of the order of six weeks in operational terms.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the police in Basra and infiltration. In any theatre of combat in the world where competing factions have been at war with each other, there is always a problem of split loyalties when rehabilitating and restructuring the police force afterwards. The question is not whether those split loyalties exist, but whether we can diminish them by human rights training and training the police to be as objective as possible. Wherever we look in the world, we find that policing is very often the last nut to be cracked. Incidentally, that applies in our own country, as well as in Bosnia or anywhere else. However, although there are certain elements in the police service in Iraq about whom we ought to be worried, I would not want him to believe that that is the majority or anything like it. Let us remember that every time Iraqi policemen put on their uniforms in the morning, they go out to face the threat of death. Many of them have died leading operations. Even in Basra, there were police around the Jameat police station trying to ensure that the 250 to 300 militant demonstrators did not approach it. So it is not the case that all the police, even in Basra, were antagonistic towards us.
	We keep the issue of helicopters under review.
	On the question of whether we reach out to Sunni politicians, I have to say that we reach out to everyone in Iraq. We will combat the terrorists, force with force, for as long as they deploy it. However, for any Sunni politician who wants to get involved in the process, we encourage the Shi'a to reach out their hands and arms to the Sunnis to be inclusive, and we encourage the Sunni politicians to engage in politics, not terrorism. That is the position that we take, and I think that it is the right one.

John Reid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks about my making the statement immediately on the House's return. I wanted to do that because, on matters of life and death, I think that the House is entitled to an early statement. That is why I came to the House today.
	I also held back the announcement of the troop roulement, so that the House could be the first to know. That has its disadvantages and I ask the House to bear with me. When I refused to answer questions on the issue over a period of several months, we got the speculation that we see in the press. One weekend, they say that everyone is immediately coming out of Iraq; the next, they say that there will be no withdrawal. I hope that hon. Members understand that none of this is our doing. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his words on that.
	The hon. Gentleman says that the situation in Iraq is getting worse, but that is not a true picture. The situation is getting better in terms of the development of democratic agreement and institutions. The Iraqis have achieved in 14 months what it has taken this country several centuries to do, namely, to reach a general agreement on the disposition of devolved powers versus central powers and the coming together of the ethnic groups. That has taken something like several hundred years in this country, so let us give them credit for that. Previous combatants have come together to forget all their previous difficulties and to try to reach a conclusion.
	The Iraqis have also made great progress—it is not getting worse—in their own security, which is the second objective. Despite everything that the terrorists are doing, the Iraqi security forces are becoming better trained, are more capable and are getting better and greater numbers than ever before.
	The Iraqis are making some social and economic advances. They are not as fast as I would like—I fully admit that—because of terrorist activity, but there is a little more electricity than there was, a little more opportunity than there was and something like 240 hospitals are now operating that previously were not. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of kids are being vaccinated and a large number of schools are being rehabilitated, so there is some advance.
	Against that, as the position gets better the terrorists will get worse. They are involving themselves more and more viciously and frenetically. They are murdering children, and ordinary working Muslim men and women in Iraq are being massacred in their hundreds—cumulatively, in their thousands—in an attempt to destroy all these things.
	I think that we should paint a balanced picture, giving credit to the democrats and the vast majority in Iraq rather than concentrating on the evil successes of those who are trying to destroy things. Part of that involves making sure that we put enough resources into the intelligence-led operations that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. I can tell him that the 12 arrests that took place on Friday were based on intelligence leads and that it was the British acting on their own who carried them out.
	In terms of time scale, I say this: to give an immutable time scale to say that we will leave tomorrow or next month on a specific date is to send a postcard to the terrorists saying, "Hang on in until this date." We will not do what the Liberal party has asked us to do—either what has been asked by its leader, which is to cut and run immediately, or what has been asked by the hon. Gentleman and his colleague, which is a different thing. I have noticed the not so subtle difference between their and their leader's statements.
	In fact, the hon. Gentleman's colleague has asked us to do what precisely what we are doing, which is to set out the terms on which there would be a handover. In all honesty, I have tried to do that today, and that is what we have done all along and will stick to. When the Iraqis have the capability and desire for us to go, we will go, but what we will not do is cut and run from the terrorists because things are getting tough or give the terrorists a date by which we will go, as that would be an invitation to them to hang on in until that date.

Neil Gerrard: In his statement, while telling us about progress that had been made the Secretary of State clearly acknowledged that his ultimate aims of democracy and security in Iraq were still to be reached, and he talked about the battle of Iraq and the number of Iraqi civilians who are still dying. In the light of that, will he suggest to his colleagues in the Home Office that it would be premature for them to start the enforced return of failed asylum seekers to Iraq?

Bob Russell: The Secretary of State announced this afternoon that the 2nd Battalion, the Parachute Regiment based in Colchester garrison is to be deployed yet again to Iraq—no happy family Christmas for its members to look forward to. Without putting a time limit on that deployment, can the right hon. Gentleman give an indication of how long the 2nd Battalion will be in Iraq this time before it is replaced by other British troops? Can he also tell us what percentage of the British Army has served in Iraq over the period that we have been there?

John Reid: On one of the points that the hon. Gentleman raised, six months' deployment, like everyone else. On the 2nd Battalion, the Parachute Regiment—great people. I had the privilege of spending some time with them as a younger MP under the armed forces parliamentary scheme, so I suppose that in some terrible way, they are responsible for my being at the Dispatch Box. I cannot think of better people to send into dangerous situations. The hon. Gentleman's third question was about the percentage of British troops who have been in Iraq. The number of British troops who have been there is about 90,000. We are now on the seventh roulement. With all taken into account, a large number of people have gone through it. When we see the headlines about this or that case of alleged brutality or alleged misdemeanour, let us remember that against some 90,000 troops who have served in Iraq there have been about 160 allegations, of which substance has been found to about 15 or 20. That puts the matter into perspective. Given the number of troops, it is right and to be expected that we would come back to the Parachute Regiment again, but of course many others are being deployed as well. We should remember that as Secretary of State, I am completely unbiased, and they are all just as good as the Parachute Regiment.

Hilary Benn: On the one hand, the advice is that the relief effort is the priority, as my hon. Friend outlines. On the other hand, I think about my family being in that situation and understand why people would want to go. We must respect the decisions that individuals make. As I said, the Red Cross is trying to establish a tracing service. If people do go, perhaps they could bear in mind the need to give priority to the relief effort, given that transport is scarce. However, I understand why people are doing everything that they can to discover what has happened to their loved ones.

Hilary Benn: We certainly will seek to do that. I hope to have available in the next day or so information on the DFID website which will help people who want to offer their skills to direct those to the right place. It is one way in which people want to help and it is important that we harness it in the right way.

Alan Duncan: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. Otherwise, I would not have had much of a Third Reading speech.
	The group of amendments tabled in my name and by others addresses the heart of the Bill. Everyone, including the Secretary of State, accepts that this is to some extent a hotchpotch of a Bill. It has no great coherent form; it contains a group of half-concocted measures that do not quite come together into a serious regime. Following the deliberations in Committee, which were so ably conducted by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier), the amendments are an attempt to introduce more cogency.
	The amendments largely define the way in which the Bill will work in practice in terms of noise and emissions, turning it from a simple enabling Bill into something more focused. The amendments also cover the growing problem of consumer concern about the monitoring of flights at night and the wall of silence faced by many people on the ground when investigating the problem of noise above them, particularly at night.
	Amendment No. 1 is a rather sly wolf in sheep's clothing. It would remove clause 2(2), which says:
	"In subsection (3) for 'limit the number of occasions on which they make take off or land,' substitute 'impose limits or other restrictions relating to aircraft taking off or landing,'".
	That specifically removes from the Secretary of State's duties the stipulation to determine the number of flights at designated airports that may or may not take place at night, and replaces the number of flights with various other stipulations, particularly concerning noise and emissions. At first sight that seems logical, and the argument will be that as noise and emissions improve, the number of flights will become less relevant. However, beneath that seeming logic lies a severe danger that those who live under the flight path of an airport will experience many more flights at night, which despite the noise and emissions stipulations will be no less disturbing.
	Such an argument contains a fallacy of methodology. Decibels alone are not a measure of nuisance. Occasions of noise—undercarriages going down and the roar of engines that do not necessarily break the decibel barrier—wake people up. We are facing, especially for designated airports and given the underlying concept perhaps for many other airports that are expanding at the moment, a depressing and unpoliced regime for the growth of flights at night.

David Taylor: I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 19 and 21, which were tabled in my name. Amendment No. 19 relates to the fixing of charges imposed on aircraft operators who breach noise and emission requirements. It seeks to ensure that the local authority in whose area the airport is situated is in agreement with the scheme that has been designed. Amendment No. 21, as the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) said, seeks to delete clause 2, which attempts to substitute quota counts for the existing numerical limits on air traffic movements at designated airports. Without my amendment No. 19, the Bill could be a polluters' charter, because airport managers can write their own rules and set their own noise levels, as was debated as some length on Second Reading. I will not repeat the thrust of that debate, but no other industry has been handed such a licence. It is like asking the breweries to tackle alcoholism, or the fast food industry to tackle obesity. No other industry has been handed a charter to set its own pollution levels and no other industry is allowed by law—as would be the case if the Bill were enacted—to ignore the local authority and the local community. No other industry is given such immunity from the law.
	In my constituency, the Nottingham East Midlands airport, as it styles itself, has one of the patchiest records on night-time noise climates of any European airport. Unfortunately, the Minister, or perhaps her predecessor, did not give sufficient weight to independent reports that say that night-time noise and the penalty regimes associated with it are intolerable and unacceptable. Nottingham East Midlands airport, which is owned by the Manchester Airports Group, has already drafted a noise control scheme in the form of a 10-point plan, and it intends to double night-time noise. Its version of a noise control scheme is designed to increase the number of aircraft movements without having any regard to noise and without any care for the community. I would be concerned if my amendment No. 19 were not incorporated in the Bill.

Laura Moffatt: I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution, but I do not share her view. I do not know about her constituency, but I know about mine: people in the most southerly point in my constituency were regularly woken by aircraft noise, but that is no longer the case because aircraft are getting quieter. For many years, I did not use the phrase "quieter aircraft"—I always used the phrase, "less noisy aircraft—because I firmly believed that progress was impossible without downward pressure on aircraft noise. I do not share the view that we should not support a mechanism to reduce the total noise that people suffer.

Edward Garnier: I know that the hon. Member for Manchester airport is keen to support his Manchester airport group and that is fair enough; he is right to do so. However, we are suspicious of the attitude that the airports, especially Nottingham airport, take towards the complaining member of the public, let alone the complaining Member of Parliament. I may be a pain in the posterior but I am doing what I am paid and elected to do. I shall go on being a pain in the posterior until the management of Nottingham east midlands airport realises that there are a public out there with whom it has to treat if it misbehaves, abuses people, throws filth all over our rural areas and does not understand that ambient noise in the city is different from the ambient noise in the country, and that if one flies an aeroplane every 90 seconds over east Leicestershire at 4,000, 5,000, 6,000, 7,000 and 8,000 ft at night, people will be woken up.
	I live in both rural Leicestershire and the centre of London. Flights go over my house in Stockwell every night and throughout the day, but I do not notice them because there is so much other ambient noise in my street and area. However, in rural areas in Leicestershire, including North-West Leicestershire, and in South Derbyshire, there is little ambient noise. It is therefore no good people saying, "It's high time you took your share of the noise." We are complaining about relative, not absolute noise.

Graham Stringer: I had not intended to speak on the Bill once I saw that the amendments dealing with support for stranded air travellers had not been pursued, but the representations that I have heard from Opposition Members and one or two contributions from Labour Members bear no relationship whatever to the debates and discussions that we had in Committee. From the comments that have been made today, I simply do not recognise the Bill that we went through line by line in Committee.
	I should like to deal with some of those points, but first I want to take up a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), whom I certainly would not accuse of being a luddite. He is right to say that there must be a balance between the economy and the environment, but he is in error about the facts when he says that we need Government intervention and not for the aviation industry to get its own way. There are two points to make on that. First, the aviation industry and the Government were one and the same creature—they were indivisible—until about 16 years ago, when BA, BAA and some airports were privatised.
	Secondly, my hon. Friend makes the point that there has been a policy of predict and provide. I do not mean this in a pejorative way at all, but the only hon. Members that I have previously heard claim that the Government have a predict-and-provide policy have been from the Liberal Democrat party. Quite clearly, there has not been a predict-and-provide policy in aviation. Had there been such a policy, there would be much more capacity in both the south-east and the rest of the country. Part of the aviation industry has been restrained in its growth, and the Government have made it clear in the White Paper that such things are down to commercial decisions, not to any predict-and-provide approach by them.

Peter Ainsworth: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, particularly as I have just returned to the Chamber and missed his opening remarks. As a matter of fact, the Environmental Audit Committee has produced more than one report accusing the Government of taking a predict-and-provide approach towards aviation. Of course, that Committee has a Labour majority.

Karen Buck: I am aware of the 10-point plan and that not everyone is satisfied with it. I am extremely conscious that even now not everyone is happy with NEMA's performance, despite the improvements. We need to continue to bear down on it, to work with it and to ensure that the improvements continue.
	The continuous descent approach, which seeks to minimise the noise of arriving flights, is achieved by 70 per cent. of aircraft. However, NEMA is not complacent. It is aware that it has to keep driving for even better performance. It has indicated that it wishes to take advantage of the noise control powers proposed in clause 4 to take tougher local action to protect the noise environment. I do not doubt that it will.
	This year's master plan, due later this year, will recast NEMA's 10-point plan on noise amelioration, setting out details of its further plans to minimise noise impacts and to respond to community concerns. The results of a recently announced MORI poll, described by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley, clearly show majority support for the airport in its locality and that concern about its impact on noise centred on those areas affected by recent routing changes. It is true that the airspace change at NEMA means that some people are overflown more frequently than before, and those people will, of course, be dissatisfied with that state of affairs, but I ask hon. Members to remember that overall the route changes have significantly reduced the number of people overflown at a height that is likely to cause disturbance.
	The airport is doing its best to engage with the local community. It operates an open-door policy to show its operations to those who are interested and to talk through their concerns. I urge any hon. Member who has spoken and who has not made a visit to contact the managing director of the airport. I look forward to meeting MPs in the vicinity later this week to discuss the issues.

Karen Buck: It does not say here, so I cannot tell the House that figure. I will confirm the definition of medium noise. I think that I can safely say that it is below 69 dB.
	For the reasons given above, I believe that we have a comprehensive set of policies in place to deal with noise insulation in a wide range of buildings, and a power of enforcement which we will use if voluntary measures do not prove sufficient. I do not believe that the new clause and amendment are necessary and I invite my hon. Friends not to press them.
	I understand that amendment No. 9, and the right of appeal to the Secretary of State against charges imposed using the powers in new section 38 that is inserted into the Bill by amendment No. 8, have been tabled in response to concerns on the part of the airline industry that at some future date they may be faced with unfair charges. However, in reality it seems unlikely to me that an airport would choose to alienate its customers by introducing new measures without reasonable notice, although clearly it has to balance this with the legitimate expectations of those living around the airport that measures will be introduced without undue delay. Any period of notice would inevitably need to reflect the complexity of the arrangements being introduced. If an airline felt that it was disadvantaged by the introduction of a charging regime at unreasonably short notice, the remedy of legal challenge would be open to it. I am sure that airports will have regard to International Civil Aviation Organisation guidance that noise-related charges should be non-discriminatory between users and should not be established at such levels as to be prohibitively high for the operation of certain aircraft.—[Interruption.] It is technical stuff.
	Amendment No. 8 would require airports making charges using the powers in new section 38 of the 1982 Act to monitor their emissions and noise levels and publish the figures annually, and to publish their plans to reduce noise and pollution. We do not believe that those reporting requirements need to be statutory. We believe that charging schemes have a valuable role to play, but they are not the only influencing factor on noise and emissions from aircraft.
	The larger airports that are more likely to take up the powers in new section 38 will already have been designated under section 35 of the 1982 Act and have consultative arrangements in place. Reporting on noise and emissions monitoring will take place through those arrangements; as regards noise, the largest airports are covered by the Aerodromes (Noise Restrictions) (Rules and Procedures) Regulations 2003, which implement the European directive on noise-related operating restrictions.
	Amendment No. 10 also imposes a reporting requirement, this time on the Secretary of State, who would be required to report annually to Parliament on the impact of airports' charging schemes on reducing noise and emissions, and on the means for monitoring noise and emissions at those airports and along flight paths. I do not believe that that would be an appropriate requirement. The levels of noise and emission at an aerodrome may vary for reasons other than the imposition of charges; for example, because of changes in the type of aircraft using the airport due to changes in the local economy, or improvements in operational practice driven by an airline operator's wish to improve fuel efficiency.
	Before "The Future of Air Transport" was published, my Department consulted on a range of proposals to do with the control of noise from civil aircraft. One of these involved giving local authorities a role in non-designated airports' noise amelioration measures. Amendment No. 19 has a similar intent.

Tom Brake: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	Hon. Members might be wondering why the new clause has been proposed now and why the subject has not come up in previous debates. A series of crashes made August 2005 one of the worst months in recent years for aviation accidents: on 14 August a Helios Airways flight crashed, killing 121 people; on 16 August a Colombian plane operated by West Caribbean Airways crashed, killing 160 people; and on 23 August, a Boeing 737 crashed on an internal flight in Peru, reportedly killing 40 people. That is why we are moving the new clause today.
	I have pulled some information off websites to illustrate the present position on airlines that are banned in the UK and countries whose aircraft are banned from flying to the UK. The countries include the Democratic Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Swaziland and Tajikistan; the airlines include Air Mauritanie, Phoenix Aviation and Thailand's Phuket Airlines. One can discover the state of play in other countries, too. The Swiss have simplified their policy by stating that they will ban from their air space any airline that has already been banned by the European Union or by a European Free Trade Association state. However, they then add a couple of other airlines—Flash Airlines from Egypt and Air Van Airlines from Armenia.
	There is quite a long list of airlines banned from flying in Belgian air space. There are some airlines that are common with the Swiss list, including Air Van Airlines, for instance. There are other airlines that are not included, and certainly on the UK list. The list of airlines banned from French air space is not consistent with the list of those airlines that are banned from the UK's air space.
	The purpose of the new clause is to introduce some consistency so that those who are wanting to make judgments about which airlines to fly with can do so in the full knowledge of whether those airlines are banned in the UK and whether they are banned in other countries. If they are banned from flying to other countries, we should know why the Secretary of State has chosen not to ban them from UK air space.
	It may be that the Minister will say that none of the airlines that are on the French list or on the Belgian list fly to the UK. That would be welcome. The Minister will also need to say whether there are any discussions already with those countries to ensure that there is consistency. I am aware that at a European Union level there are plans to introduce a common list, but we need measures to be taken much sooner. There are no guarantees that the EU will come to a swift and satisfactory conclusion on this very important issue.
	When the Minister responds, I hope that he will be able to clarify exactly what the relationship is between the Department of Trade and Industry and its counterparts in relation to banning airlines and whether there is, when the French ban an airline, for example, immediate discussion with the UK about whether it would be appropriate for that airline to be banned in the UK. I hope also that the Minister will be able to set out the time scales for coming to a conclusion at an EU level. If the time scales mean that we will have to wait for months or years before some sort of decision is implemented at an EU level, it would be entirely appropriate for the UK Government to publicise, albeit in a rather discreet way, the airlines that are banned. That information does not hit us when we go to the Department's website to try to find it. It would be entirely appropriate also for our Government to take action now to make it clear why, if other countries are banning airlines from flying into their air space, we have not chosen to do the same thing.
	I hope that the Minister will be able to give some reassurances on these matters. If not, I will be seeking to push the new clause to a vote.

Tom Brake: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
	I am pleased to have an opportunity, albeit brief, to speak to new clause 7. For Members who may not be familiar with section 35 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982, it states:
	"The person having the management of any aerodrome . . . shall provide . . . adequate facilities for consultation with respect to any matter concerning the management or administration of the aerodrome which affects their interests."
	The new clause would change section 35, making it the responsibility of the local authority to establish a committee, including representatives of—
	It being Nine o'clock,Mr. Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Order [27 June], put the Questions necessary to bring proceedings on consideration of the Bill to a conclusion.

Brian H Donohoe: Earlier this evening, I made a point of order about an amendment that I had tabled and indicated to you, Mr. Speaker, that I was surprised that it had not been selected. Despite your explanation, I remain extremely disappointed that the matter was not voiced as it should have been in our debates. The time that we had did not allow us to expand our discussion to address the issue properly.
	It is not very often, Mr. Speaker, that I have differences with you in our debates, but in this instance I have to say that I am at variance with what the Government are saying about the £1 levy. I cannot believe that they equate the failure of an airline with a store going bankrupt. I find it astounding that anybody would suggest that it is like someone losing money after employing cowboy workmen. There is no common sense whatever in saying that the situation is like that of someone who is unfortunate enough to have losses on the stock market.
	The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) raised the question of Europe. He was right to do so because, at some point, the Government will be forced to make significant alterations to the Bill. It is clear to me, at any rate, that there is an anomaly, and some discrimination, in the situation of the no-frills airlines and that of the chartered airlines. I do not know how the Government can say that, on balance, they have come to these conclusions. I want to know from the Minister what that balance was—was it 60–40, 70–30 or, as I suspect, something like 90–10?

Neil Gerrard: I am pleased to have the opportunity to initiate the first Adjournment debate after the summer recess. The main issue that I want to raise is the change that was made during the recess to granting indefinite leave to people who were given refugee status, a change that was mentioned in the five-year plan that the Home Office produced earlier this year, but a change that had never been debated or discussed in the House before it was brought into force at the end of August. When it became evident shortly before the summer recess that the change was likely to take place, several Members expressed concern. In the last few days before the summer recess more than 40 Members added their names to an early-day motion on the subject.
	I really do not understand the reasoning behind the change. It reverses a policy that the Labour Government introduced in 1998. It was announced in the White Paper of July 1998. Before 1998, anyone who was given refugee status was given only temporary permission to stay and had to wait four years before they could apply for indefinite leave. In the 1998 White Paper, we said that the immediate granting of indefinite leave would help refugees to integrate more easily and quickly into society, to the benefit of the entire community into which they had been accepted. It then went on to say that this policy was wholly consistent with the Government commitment to a more humanitarian approach to the UK's obligations under the 1951 refugee convention and to faster identification of those in genuine need of protection.
	Those arguments were absolutely right in 1998. I do not understand why the same arguments are not regarded as valid now. I know from correspondence that I have had with the Minister over the summer that he may say that things have changed since 1998, that we are now in a different situation and that the number of asylum applications has changed considerably. Indeed, it has dropped a lot in the past year or two. The Minister may well say that the time scale for decision-making has changed. It is welcome that the time scale now for initial decisions is so much shorter than it used to be. The arguments that we made in 1998 for indefinite leave were not about numbers or time scales for decision making. They were about principles—what was the best way to help people whom we recognised as refugees to integrate into society, and how could we best to operate our commitments under the 1951 convention? The convention does not explicitly demand that we immediately give indefinite leave to someone to whom we grant refugee status, and until 1998 we did not grant leave in such circumstances. However, doing so is in the spirit of the convention, and that is the argument that we made in the 1998 White Paper.
	European countries do not all grant indefinite leave. In the five-year plan published earlier this year it was argued that a number of European countries granted refugees temporary leave initially rather than immediate settlement. That was true before 1998, however, and we did not regard it as a valid argument. If we are going to reverse the policy of granting indefinite leave—a policy that is only seven years old—it should be possible to point to problems that have arisen from its operation, but I am not aware of any argument that such problems have been created. I am convinced, however, that problems will be created by the reversal of the policy. It is disingenuous to say, as the Home Office has said in correspondence, that the change is not intended to prolong the uncertainty and instability faced by refugees, because that is exactly what it is guaranteed to do.

Andy Burnham: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on securing the debate.
	At the start of his remarks, my hon. Friend rightly pointed out that hon. Members should be given the opportunity to discuss such a significant policy change. I recognise that the debate is important, and it is pleasing to see so many of my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes).
	I listened carefully to my hon. Friend, who has anticipated some of my arguments—he is well versed in reading letters from the Home Office—but if he listens to the detail, I can provide reassurance on many of his points. Although I have been in the House for only a short time, I know that no hon. Member is more assiduous than him in raising such matters and that his comments are born out of genuine concern.
	The Government remain committed to the 1951 refugee convention, which is part of a legal and ethical framework that enshrines basic principles of human decency—a civilised society may be judged on how it treats desperate people who are fleeing persecution. I do not accept that the new policy of granting refugees five years' limited leave to remain in the first instance rather than immediate settlement represents an erosion of the Government's commitment to refugees or to the international protection system in general. Hon. Members are understandably concerned about how the new policy will operate, which is why I want to take this opportunity clearly to set out why we are introducing it, how we envisage that it will work in practice and what its consequences will be for refugees and their families.
	My hon. Friend has rightly pointed out that the Government's five-year strategy on asylum and immigration, which was published in February, set out our intention to introduce a policy of limited leave rather than immediate settlement for refugees, which was also a manifesto commitment. My hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality announced the new policy to both Houses in a written ministerial statement on 19 July, and it was implemented on 30 August. From that date onwards, all refugees, other than those arriving in the UK under resettlement programmes, have been granted five years' limited leave to remain rather than immediate indefinite leave to remain.
	We made that change for two main reasons: first, there should be a clear and consistent approach to those obtaining leave under the immigration rules on how long they have to be here before they become eligible for settlement, and we have decided to set that period at 5 years for most categories; secondly, we should provide refuge to people for as long as they need it, but if conditions in their country improve significantly, it is reasonable to expect them to return, particularly where they have spent only a relatively short period in the UK.
	Some have argued that the new policy is not within the spirit of the refugee convention—I note that my hon. Friend has not made that argument this evening—while others have suggested that it flies in the face of the Government's decision in 1998 to give recognised refugees immediate indefinite leave to remain. Those considerations are important, and I shall address each of them in turn.
	The refugee convention states that it shall cease to apply to someone who
	"can no longer, because of the circumstances in connection with which he has been recognised as a refugee have ceased to exist, continue to refuse to avail himself of the protection of his country of nationality."
	In other words, an individual is only a refugee for as long as he needs the protection of the refugee convention and for no longer. Our new policy is therefore within the spirit of the refugee convention, but there should be no doubt that where the conditions that gave rise to a refugee's fear of persecution continue to exist after five years, we will allow them to seek permanent settlement in the UK. However, where there has been a significant and non-temporary change in conditions in their country sufficient to suggest that they could return in safety, they will be expected to return there—indeed, I am sure that many refugees would wish to go home in such circumstances.
	Some have questioned why we have reversed the decision that we took in 1998 to give refugees immediate settlement; indeed, my hon. Friend raised that very point. He also anticipated the answer: we believe that the decision was the right one given the circumstances of the time and the immigration system that we inherited from the Conservatives, which was, as he will remember perhaps better than anybody, a system that was in crisis with huge backlogs. As a result, a large number of asylum seekers had been in the UK for many years before receiving decisions—even initial decisions—on their applications.
	It is important to contrast that with the picture today. Backlogs in the system are at their lowest level for a decade. Asylum intake is back to 1997 levels and has fallen further and faster than in the EU as a whole in recent years. It was 76 per cent. lower in the UK in the second quarter of 2005 compared with the peak in October 2002, and 32 per cent. lower in the UK in 2004 than in 2003. That is the essential context of this debate, and it is largely the result of action that the Government have taken to increase the efficiency of the asylum process. More than 80 per cent. of initial decisions are now made within two months. We have brought forward legislation to deter unfounded asylum claims. As my hon. Friend knows, there have been three major pieces of legislation since 1997, as well as the Bill currently before the House on which detailed consideration will begin next week.
	We believe that that process of reform should continue, and we are rolling out what we call the new asylum model that will result in tighter case management of asylum claims through to the final outcome, whether that be integration or removal. The new policy of limited leave for refugees is a return to one of the basic principles of the Geneva convention—that generally someone is a refugee only for as long as the conditions that mean that they will be at risk of persecution continue to exist. It brings the UK into line with most other European countries—that is an important point to stress. France, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands and Denmark, for example, all require a refugee to complete a period of temporary leave before applying for permanent residence. Refugees are now granted five years' limited leave from day one, which may—I stress that word—be subject to review if they bring themselves within the scope of the refugee convention's exclusion or cessation clauses through their own actions: for example, where a person commits a terrorist act or re-establishes himself in his country of origin.
	Those triggers for review are not new. The new element is that refugee status and limited leave may—again, I stress that word—also be reviewed where there is a significant and non-temporary change in conditions in a country or part of a country that places in doubt the continuing need for protection in the UK of all or certain groups of refugees from that country or part of it. We would determine that such changes had taken place on the basis of objective country information. When we determine on the basis of that information, and other sources such as case law, that certain categories of claim are likely to be clearly unfounded and that the change is of a durable nature, we will consider whether to instigate a review of previous grants of refugee status and limited leave to those falling within the scope of those categories.
	However, I can give my hon. Friend assurances on a number of points, and I hope that they will go some way towards reassuring him. First, any review will be conducted on a case-by-case basis, and the burden of proof will be on the immigration and nationality directorate—

Andy Burnham: Yes, we have. I think it will be of interest to my hon. Friend if I describe some of the ways in which the measures will work in practice. The ability to move cases through the system more quickly has enabled staff time and resources to be deployed in different ways, and we have obviously weighed up those considerations, but if I describe the system, it might make more sense.
	A number of hon. Members have given the impression that the new policy will leave a sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of all refugees for up to five years. I do not believe that that will be the case. Nor do I accept that the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal will be swamped with appeals flowing from decisions to curtail leave granted to refugees. Many of the countries that generate large numbers of refugees, regrettably for those who live there, are unlikely to become safe and stable within the next few years. I anticipate that declarations that country conditions have changed will be used sparingly. The Government consider, however, that it is right in principle to undertake a case-by-case review of grants of refugee status and limited leave when there is a significant and durable change in a particular country affecting some or all categories of claims. I stress again, however, that many of the countries that we are talking about are unlikely to reach the position in which there would be a trigger for review. We all know from our constituency postbags that not many countries have experienced such a change in in-country conditions as to warrant the kind of review that we are discussing.
	If a refugee completes five years' leave without a review having been triggered, there will not be an in-depth review of their case as a matter of routine when they apply for settlement before the expiry of their leave. We would, however, check to ensure that the triggers for review on the basis of the cessation clauses had not previously been missed. We would also check for evidence of serious criminality or exclusion.
	Some have suggested that the change of policy will have a damaging effect on refugees' entitlement to benefits and services, and undermine their integration into the UK. I am clear that this is not the case. Refugees continue to have access to key mainstream benefits, as well as to social housing and to employment. The Government are committed to ensuring that refugees are able to contribute to their communities while they are in the UK, and to participate fully in our economy and society. For that reason, they will retain access to a whole range of assistance, including personal integration plans, mentoring and integration loans. Indeed, we are currently legislating to ensure that refugees with limited leave will have access to such loans. By promoting integration, we will ensure that refugees can contribute fully to the life of the UK while they are here. If conditions improve sufficiently to allow them to return home, the skills that they have acquired here should stand them in good stead for the future.
	I do not believe that my hon. Friend is right to say that the measures will set back the good work that has been done on integration in communities up and down the country. We are currently embarking on the reform of the National Refugee Integration Forum, and considering what further steps we can take to ensure that refugee integration is improved and that we build on the successes that exist. I do not believe that that necessarily means that there should be any backward steps in that regard.
	Finally, I want to touch on the position of resettled refugees and changes to humanitarian policy. We have decided that refugees arriving in the UK under resettlement programmes such as Gateway should continue to get immediate indefinite leave to remain. These refugees have been outside their countries of origin for many years and have no realistic prospect of returning there. Many are held in UN camps in different parts of the world. Integration in the first country to which they have fled is often not possible. Indeed, these are the refugees who have suffered the most stress and trauma before their arrival—
	The motion having been made at Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.
	4 July 2005: in column 86 [Division 26], after "Williams, rh Mr. Alan" insert "Williams, Betty".